Albany Medical Center
 Search
Home / Caring / Educating / Find a Doctor / News / Give Now / Careers / About / Calendar / Directions / Contact
July 18, 2013 | Posted By Paul Burcher, MD, PhD

Most practicing physicians learn the four principles of biomedical ethics at some point during medical school or residency training.  Despite the original intent of Tom Beauchamp and James Childress when they first described the four principles as co-equal in importance, we physicians tend to think first about patient autonomy and view it as the most critical of the four principles.  The least understood and appreciated of the four principles is nonmaleficence. (Even my word processor wants to change it to malfeasance, and so do many medical students I teach). 

The reason nonmaleficence is misunderstood, and therefore often ignored, is that the duty to “do no harm” seems impossible to follow.   Beauchamp and Childress are clear that harm is anything that counts as a setback to a patient—any pain or injury is therefore a harm—and practically everything we do to our patients is in some sense a harm.  The duty to nonmaleficence must be more complicated that simply doing no harm or it would be a duty to stop practicing medicine.

A better way to understand the duty to nonmaleficence is that physicians must always seek to reduce harm and risk of harm whenever possible.  Now we have a principle with real-world implications, and I would like to make it even more concrete by offering a brief case scenario to illustrate how this principle can come into play in everyday practice.  I recently saw a woman in her 40s with menorrhagia and dysmenorrhea, but with a normal ultrasound and endometrial biopsy.  She was not anemic.  She declined medical therapy, declined a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD, and refused an endometrial ablation.  Would you do the hysterectomy that she requests knowing she is choosing the procedure with the greatest risk of harm to herself?  What if I added that she has had a myocardial infarction three months ago, has uncontrolled type II diabetes, and is morbidly obese?  If autonomy is the only principle that matters in bioethics, then as long as she is making an informed choice, you have no reason to refuse to perform the surgery.  But the duty to nonmaleficence seems to suggest that sometimes the more ethical response may be to say “no” to our patients when what they are requesting presents too much risk, and too little benefit.  Furthermore, we should perhaps not even offer options when the risk/benefit ratio is too unfavorable. 

This is not as outlandish or paternalistic as it may appear.  None of us offer hysterectomies to teenagers with menorrhagia from anovulation, nor do we offer prolapse surgery to elderly frail women with prolapse that could be successfully managed with a pessary.  We all know that it is good medicine to seek to reduce the risk of harm to our patients.  It is also good ethics, even if the patient feels differently.   Respecting patient autonomy is important, but so is reducing the risk of harm to patients, and it is the actual facts of the situation that should dictate which principle is more important in a given circumstance.  This is the “balancing” required of ethical decision-making: determining which principle is most important for each patient encounter and ethical question that we face.

3 comments | Topics: Autonomy, Clinical Ethics, Nonmaleficence

Comments

sheila otto

sheila otto wrote on 07/18/13 6:34 PM

Agreed. Physicians are not buffet chefs, but rather trained individuals who must diagnose, present options and make recommendations based on science. Unfortunately, there is much variety within the profession and my guess is that your patient can easily find someone to do the hysterectomy.
Athene Aberdeen

Athene Aberdeen wrote on 07/19/13 10:16 PM

Thank you for this article. Financial gain on the part of the physician sometimes cloud ethical decision making when medical options for patients are put forward.
Nick Cerrato

Nick Cerrato wrote on 07/20/13 1:08 PM

Great Post all around! My favorite line, one which I support wholeheartedly is: "we should perhaps not even offer options when the risk/benefit ratio is too unfavorable." Why is it so difficult to make a rational caring decision based on that?

Add A Comment
(it will not be displayed)




SEARCH BIOETHICS TODAY
SUBSCRIBE TO BIOETHICS TODAY
ABOUT BIOETHICS TODAY
BIOETHICS TODAY is the blog of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, presenting topical and timely commentary on issues, trends, and breaking news in the broad arena of bioethics. BIOETHICS TODAY presents interviews, opinion pieces, and ongoing articles on health care policy, end-of-life decision making, emerging issues in genetics and genomics, procreative liberty and reproductive health, ethics in clinical trials, medicine and the media, distributive justice and health care delivery in developing nations, and the intersection of environmental conservation and bioethics.
TOPICS